Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot control pending tribunal decisions on stamp law objections in insolvency proceedings.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction, so the High Court may interfere only to keep a tribunal within jurisdiction or to correct grave illegality, perversity, or manifest injustice. It cannot direct how the NCLT should decide pending objections on stamp law or the admissibility of documents, or reappreciate interim orders. As the insolvency dispute had not been finally determined and had been remitted for fresh consideration, the petition was premature and supervisory interference was declined, leaving the Stamp Act issues to be decided afresh on merits by the NCLT.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 227 could be entertained to direct the NCLT on the manner in which it should deal with objections based on stamp law and the admissibility of documents in pending insolvency proceedings.

Analysis: Article 227 confers a supervisory jurisdiction, not an appellate one. The High Court can intervene only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority or to correct grave dereliction of duty, flagrant illegality, perversity, or a manifest failure of justice. It cannot direct how a tribunal should decide pending issues, reappreciate the correctness of interim orders, or guide the tribunal's view on rival submissions. The petition was also premature because the NCLT had not finally determined the controversy; the NCLAT had left all issues open and had directed that the matter be considered de novo, uninfluenced by the earlier interim order.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable at this stage and no supervisory interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The dispute on the applicability of the Stamp Act vis-a -vis the insolvency proceedings was left for the NCLT to determine afresh on merits, and the High Court declined to intervene under Article 227.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 227 cannot be used to control or pre-empt the manner in which a subordinate tribunal decides pending issues, and interference is justified only for grave jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest injustice.

---